Intel processor outperforms Nvidia, Qualcomm, Samsung ICs

For the CPU test, three phones scored in the 5000 range for performance,
but of the three, Intel stood out with only 0.85A of average current
versus 1.38A for the Samsung Exynos Octa, and 1.79A for the Qualcomm
APQ8064T.

Similar trends were seen for most tests. If one of the
chips scored a lower current consumption it only did so with performance
that was significantly lower. If the performance was better, the
current was higher, said ABI. The only test where a competitor matched
the performance of the Intel Z2580 was for recording 1080p video.

The
Samsung Galaxy S4 i377 had a lower current drain than the Lenovo K900
but this was due to the use of a separate image processor provided by
Fujitsu, said ABI.

The Samsung Exynos Octa processor, which
includes the big-little approach to processing developed by ARM,
performed well without a separate image processor in both the 1080p and
3D graphics tests; outscoring all but with proportionally higher current
compared to the Z2580 from Intel, said ABI.

Other components
that support the Intel chips inside in Lenovo K900 include: the Broadcom
BCM4330 combo IC, GPS chip from CSR plc, sensors from
STMicroelectronics and the Wolfson WM5102E audio hub, which is also
found in the Samsung Galaxy S4 i9500.

But is is a pretty poor journlistic article that has since been proven that it used false data to jump to massively incorrect conclusions.

>So, will all the sensationalistic bloggers retract their stories about Intel beating ARM? Likely not, but this definitely questions their credibility just as it does benchmarks.

Still waiting for the retraction on this article.

---

ARM Beats Intel With Revised AnTuTu Benchmark

http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1318894&

> Technical consulting firm BDTI pointed out that the compiled code for the Intel processor was not executing all instructions that were intended for the RAM test.

>To rectify the situation, AnTuTu issued revision 3.2.2 to the benchmark Wednesday evening. The revision still uses the ICC compiler, but the resulting scores are drastically different for the Intel processor. The AnTuTu CPU and overall scores dropped by approximately 20 percent, while the AnTuTu RAM score plummeted by approximately 50 percent

Maybe. Assuming mobile CPUs gain enough performance to replace say Core I7 (a tall order), there is still the i/o problem. In spite of the hype, there is more to replacing desktops than having a CPU with enough raw processing power. We need it to drive (multiple?) large screen monitors, external hard/SSD drives, keyboards, mice, Ethernet, etc., and with a single small cable and i/o controller that uses miniscule amounts of power. It will be a while.
I see it another way that has nothing to do with desktop workstations. Smartphones are following the PC evolutionary path. With increased performance comes more capable aps, which in turn drives the need for more performance. Human wants and desires are boundless. Once the more capable aps are in use, there will be minimum system requirements, just like we saw as the PC evolved. There is no static "good enough" level. The software is what will drive up performance minimums. Nobody will want a device that isn't able to run the software du jour. Since software developers will certainly make use of any performance gains, a mobile processor performance war is inevitable.
Intel is positioning well. If they can deliver the same performance with less power, then a "tock" release can increase clock speed and still stay within the power and thermal limitations. That puts the pressure on ARM to increase performance, else risk their chips not being able to run the latest software. Basically, this is what Intel did to AMD for years with desktop processors.

It is a different ISA and most instructions are treated as a single op down the pipeline. Intel does not need to be as deeply OoO. Also, OoO depth does not scale linearly. Its not a very good metric when comparing completely different ISAs. Also, the new Atom's decoders are significantly improved over old Atom.

Android is Linux underneath and runs just as well on x86. I doubt if there are many software hiccups, and most aps would need a simple recompile. I would say most aps are developed on Linux workstations.